Odd interaction with a road rager



Muttley wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 14:34:50 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> Besides, all that stuff about the economy, the price of oil, the
>>> war on Iraq and the war on terror are all big complicated subjects
>>> too deep for the public. Let the politicians and media tells us
>>> what's good for us.

>>
>> Ah, the Soviet system.

>
> Yup, now adopted by the good old U S A !


So to recap the thread (since it's been snipped): CBS uses obviously forged
documents to make Bush look bad 45 days before the election, and that
somehow makes the US like the USSR?

Bill "can we send Rather to Siberia?" S.
 
"Muttley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 14:34:50 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>Besides, all that stuff about the economy, the price of oil, the war on
> >>Iraq and the war on terror are all big complicated subjects too deep for
> >>the public. Let the politicians and media tells us what's good for us.

> >
> > Ah, the Soviet system.

>
> Yup, now adopted by the good old U S A !


Only much more sophisticated, as the market system has honed the genius of
the marketing folks.

I wonder what Thomas Jefferson, my personal hero of the Founding Fathers,
would make of all of this.


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
please substitute yahoo for mousepotato to reply
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
 
Jack Dingler wrote:
>
> Ken [NY) wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:17:10 GMT, Jack Dingler <[email protected]>
> >claims:
> >>>
> >>The major news media has been reporting that the Taliban and Al Queda
> >>have retaken much of Afghanistan with the US and the appointed
> >>government staying in bases, near the oil infrastructure and protected
> >>areas. They could be lying of course. You never know whta to believe in
> >>the news, so much of it is invented political stuff.
> >>
> >>The Northern Alliance of Poppy Growers and Heroin Producers that the US
> >>backed, have been reported as funding the resistance.
> >>
> >>But then at this point there seems to be an uneasy truce. They leave the
> >>pipeles alone and we don't shell villages.
> >>
> >>I think your info is just old, Ken.

> >
> > Is your "major news media" source the same folks who gave us
> >the anti-Bush phoney memos done on Microsoft Word in the 1970s before
> >Microsoft was founded?

>
> I loved that one. Actually us old guys know that typewriters with
> interchangeable font heads and proportional spacing were commonplace.


But not on government correspondence. That was always done with the
standard "typewriter" font. Making corrections on proportionally-spaced
typed copy was a real ***** if you had to replace an i with an m or vice
versa. And the feds used smaller paper to save money, and I'm pretty
sure that they would never have put that centered-at-the-top
"letterhead" on memos either.

I think the Selectric had the first interchangeable heads, but I typed
on an IBM Executive (proportional weighted type, beautiful output) at
least a decade before Selectrics. The type on the memo in question was
NOT weighted, just proportionally spaced. Cheap and ugly.

> In fact, the proportional spacing that the experts claim was impossible to
> do with a typewriter, was introduced by IBM in 1941. Back in the 1970s,
> you could swap typefaces in the middle of letters and even use different
> colored print ribbons. Was a heady time for the typewriter industry.


The feds wouldn't have done that, though. Everything they typed looked
cheesy. By design.

> Them young-uns have no idea what was possible using 20th century technology.


No ****. In 1963 I typed a 2-page right-justified brochure on my IBM
Executive. God, it was beautiful. It looked like real print. You had
to type it once, figure out how much space you had to add or subtract in
each line and then type it again. Kerning by hand, so to speak. It was
really fun. The alternative was paying somebody with a Varityper (I
think that's what it was) to crank it out at some exhorbitant cost per
word. I worked cheaper than that.

--
Cheers,
Bev
=========================================================
"Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority."
-- U.S. Supreme Court, McIntyre v Ohio Elections,1995
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Elisa Francesca Roselli <[email protected]> writes:

> But this is really off-topic.


I just had an epiphany (don't ask me how it was induced:)

Edgar Winter for Prez; Rick Derringer for VP.
Johnny Winter for Solicitor-General, or whatever
it is the Americans call the main legal guy.

That should rock the country out. And maybe let Lenny
Kravitz do some stuff, if he's not too noisy & shrill
about it. Maybe he could at least yell at Ted Nugent,
Charleton Heston, Al Franken, Ralph Nader, Donald Trump,
Bill Maher, Montel Williams, Tony Brown, Wolf Blitzer, and
all those puffed-up talking heads on network news and PBS.

Yeah. America needs a figure who'll yell at all those
irritants, and put them in their God-damned places -- for
the people, by the people, and of the people. Maybe Alice
Cooper could back him up.

If that's not possible, I'd hope Americans would then
just vote for the guy who best knows the lyrics to Bob
Dylan's 'A Hard Rain's Gonna Fall', and who can best
hold his liquor. Of the two obvious choices, I don't
believe either qualifies.


cheers,
Tom


--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
 
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 16:44:34 GMT, "S o r n i" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Muttley wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 14:34:50 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Besides, all that stuff about the economy, the price of oil, the
>>>> war on Iraq and the war on terror are all big complicated subjects
>>>> too deep for the public. Let the politicians and media tells us
>>>> what's good for us.
>>>
>>> Ah, the Soviet system.

>>
>> Yup, now adopted by the good old U S A !

>
>So to recap the thread (since it's been snipped): CBS uses obviously forged
>documents to make Bush look bad 45 days before the election, and that
>somehow makes the US like the USSR?
>
>Bill "am I reall this dense" S.


No, Bill. The system where we let the politicians and media tells us what's good
for us.

It's so much easier that way for the hard of thinking.
 
Muttley wrote:

>> Bill "am I reall this dense" S.

>
> No, Bill. The system where we let the politicians and media tells us
> what's good for us.
>
> It's so much easier that way for the hard of thinking.


Dishonest quoting (with a lame typo at that) suits you, Mutt. That's all I
need to know about you.

Bill "he who tells little lies tells big ones, too" S.
 
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 22:32:55 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Muttley wrote:
>
>>> Bill "am I reall this dense" S.

>>
>> No, Bill. The system where we let the politicians and media tells us
>> what's good for us.
>>
>> It's so much easier that way for the hard of thinking.

>
>Dishonest quoting (with a lame typo at that) suits you, Mutt. That's all I
>need to know about you.
>
>Bill "he who tells little lies tells big ones, too" S.


Bill, that is one of the most egregious cases of the pot calling the kettle
black that I've ever seen.

You removed the significant part of the post I was responding to, placed your
own paragraph after the quote - a paragraph that made it look as if I was
refering to something _quite_ different to what I was actually refering to.

That was truly dishonest. A _big_ lie, if you like.

My misquote could not really be considered dishonest - it was in no way an
attempt to deceive anyone, because no one would ever believe for a momemnt that
you'd actually typed that.

I have thought that you're a dishonest poster for some time, mainly because you
maintain that you are not political, yet show a very definite political bias. I
had given you the benefit of the doubt up until now, but you tricky editing and
selective quoting that tried to make if look as if I'd intended something I
hadn't, now makes me reassess that attitude.

And having the effrontery to complain that a jokey and obvious misquote was some
kind of a lie, after you far more serious dishonesty really takes the biscuit.

Oh, and a typo isn't lame, or not lame, it's a typo.
 
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Muttley wrote:
>
> >> Bill "am I reall this dense" S.

> >
> > No, Bill. The system where we let the politicians and media tells us
> > what's good for us.
> >
> > It's so much easier that way for the hard of thinking.

>
> Dishonest quoting (with a lame typo at that) suits you, Mutt. That's all I
> need to know about you.
>
> Bill "he who tells little lies tells big ones, too" S.


Bill, you're a hypocrite. You edited his post to make it look as if he
was saying something quite different to what he did. Now you're
whining about a little bit of satire.

Doug
 
Muttley wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 22:32:55 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Muttley wrote:
>>
>>>> Bill "am I reall this dense" S.
>>>
>>> No, Bill. The system where we let the politicians and media tells us
>>> what's good for us.
>>>
>>> It's so much easier that way for the hard of thinking.

>>
>> Dishonest quoting (with a lame typo at that) suits you, Mutt.
>> That's all I need to know about you.
>>
>> Bill "he who tells little lies tells big ones, too" S.

>
> Bill, that is one of the most egregious cases of the pot calling the
> kettle black that I've ever seen.
>
> You removed the significant part of the post I was responding to,
> placed your own paragraph after the quote - a paragraph that made it
> look as if I was refering to something _quite_ different to what I
> was actually refering to.


I did not remove anything, liar. (I just re-read the thread to make sure.)
Maybe someone BEFORE that deleted some stuff, but I simply replied to your
post as was.

> That was truly dishonest. A _big_ lie, if you like.


"One of the most egregious cases of the pot calling the kettle black that
I've ever seen" -- Mutt.

Bill "can't improve on that" S.
 
Doug Evans wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>> Muttley wrote:
>>
>>>> Bill "am I reall this dense" S.
>>>
>>> No, Bill. The system where we let the politicians and media tells us
>>> what's good for us.
>>>
>>> It's so much easier that way for the hard of thinking.

>>
>> Dishonest quoting (with a lame typo at that) suits you, Mutt.
>> That's all I need to know about you.
>>
>> Bill "he who tells little lies tells big ones, too" S.

>
> Bill, you're a hypocrite. You edited his post to make it look as if he
> was saying something quite different to what he did. Now you're
> whining about a little bit of satire.


Read it again, Doug (I've done it twice now). I DID NOT EDIT A THING.

Bill "the thread is right there, WTF?!?" S.
 
Zoot Katz weaseled (note correct spelling):
> Wed, 22 Sep 2004 22:32:55 GMT,
> <[email protected]>, "Bill Sornson"
> <[email protected]> weaselled:
> \whack
>
>> Bill "he who tells little lies tells big ones, too" S.

>
> Ain't that the truth.


Haven't enough people told you to kiss their ass today, Zoot? :)

Bill "evidently not" S.
 
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:55:33 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> You removed the significant part of the post I was responding to,
>> placed your own paragraph after the quote - a paragraph that made it
>> look as if I was refering to something _quite_ different to what I
>> was actually refering to.

>
>I did not remove anything, liar. (I just re-read the thread to make sure.)
>Maybe someone BEFORE that deleted some stuff, but I simply replied to your
>post as was.


OK, You're correct. It wasn't you that removed stuff. What you did was ignore
what I was actually responding to, and precis the stuff that went before, then
sort of implied that I was refering to that. Which I'll accept was an honest
mistake (since I went right ahead and made a similar mistake myself).

I suggest we stop calling each other liars and dishonest.

It gets very hard to follow the ins and outs of a thread this size.

I was just trying to make a joke about the way Joe Public, in general, relies on
the idiot box and the politicos that appear on it to tell him what to think.
 
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 19:07:13 GMT, [email protected] (Muttley) wrote:

>OK, You're correct. It wasn't you that removed stuff. What you did was ignore
>what I was actually responding to, and precis the stuff that went before, then
>sort of implied that I was refering to that. Which I'll accept was an honest
>mistake (since I went right ahead and made a similar mistake myself).


BTW, there is an apology in there, somewhere :)
 
Muttley wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:55:33 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> You removed the significant part of the post I was responding to,
>>> placed your own paragraph after the quote - a paragraph that made it
>>> look as if I was refering to something _quite_ different to what I
>>> was actually refering to.

>>
>> I did not remove anything, liar. (I just re-read the thread to make
>> sure.) Maybe someone BEFORE that deleted some stuff, but I simply
>> replied to your post as was.

>
> OK, You're correct. It wasn't you that removed stuff. What you did
> was ignore what I was actually responding to, and precis the stuff
> that went before, then sort of implied that I was refering to that.
> Which I'll accept was an honest mistake (since I went right ahead and
> made a similar mistake myself).
>
> I suggest we stop calling each other liars and dishonest.
>
> It gets very hard to follow the ins and outs of a thread this size.
>
> I was just trying to make a joke about the way Joe Public, in
> general, relies on the idiot box and the politicos that appear on it
> to tell him what to think.


Well thank you for that (your other post, too). FWIW I wasn't all that
serious, either, as I hardly thought you /literally/ thought the USA had
adopted a Soviet system. (Yet, at least :) I even commented that the
thread had been snipped.

I still think Rather and CBS *were* trying to, in effect, tell Joe Public
what to think -- dishonestly, at that -- and got caught red-handed. (Or,
Xerox-ink handed?)

Bill "working on keeping trap shut" S.
 
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Read it again, Doug (I've done it twice now). I DID NOT EDIT A THING.


Apologies. I had to read it again: twice!

I guess that some people around here need to get out on their bikes a bit more.

If I may use your idiom:

Doug "Why am I at my keyboard when I could be out on my bike" Evans
 
Doug Evans wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>> Read it again, Doug (I've done it twice now). I DID NOT EDIT A
>> THING.

>
> Apologies. I had to read it again: twice!
>
> I guess that some people around here need to get out on their bikes a
> bit more.
>
> If I may use your idiom:
>
> Doug "Why am I at my keyboard when I could be out on my bike" Evans


Thanks. (You guys almost had me convinced I *had* snipped something!)

Bill "ditto the 'out on the bike' thing (heading up coast in a while)" S.
 
The trouble is that the wrong Kerry is running. Bob Kerry one can respect
and admire while disagreeing with him. The pond scum John Kerry's behavior:
self-glorifying lies about his delusional activities during his short 4
months in Vietnam, insulting our troops with outrageous war crimes charges,
and then offering aid and comfort to the enemy meeting with them in France
(while our POW's were being abused by them) is so far beyond the pale... It
is disgusting he was nominated by the Democrats. We have a traitor running
for president thanks to the Democrat primary voters. Nice. Very nice.

What the devil is with the Democrats? They could have nominated Joe
Lieberman, an honorable man that anyone would be satisfied to have as
president, Republican or Democrat, and they nominate the self-serving
traitorous liar John Kerry. His own campaign has had to disavow his repeated
nonsense about his life being turned around by being illegally ordered by
Nixon into Cambodia with his river patrol boat. The boat wasn't there and
Nixon wasn't even president. Democrats had a lot of fun with Reagan's lapses
where he confused movie scripts with real memories. But at least his stories
were meant to uplift the human spirit by giving positive examples of human
behavior. Kerry's self-serving stories are meant to make Kerry look
good...which he's not. He's no Ron Reagan...or Jack Kennedy, for that
matter. Jack Kennedy was a patriot and he would puke at the thought of scum
like Kerry running for president.

There are a lot more people who would be happy to vote against bad-luck Bush
if the Democrats ran a respectable candidate instead of John Kerry.



GRL
"Ken [NY)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 16:13:47 GMT, [email protected] (Muttley)
> claims:
>
> >>>Are you saying that Kerry is bilingual? As opposed to Dubya who has
> >>>not even mastered English yet? ;-)
> >>
> >> I am saying that Mr. Kerry speaks French fluently.
> >> BTW, is another meaning of "bilingual" an ability to state a
> >>belief, then after a little while, flip-flop to an opposite belief?
> >>As in having "two tongues"?

> >
> >No, that's called growing with experience.

>
> Then he should be about twelve feet tall by now with all those
> beliefs of his that change about every day or so.
>
> >Or, possibly, being a two faced hypocrite.
> >
> >But that's something each person has to decide for themselves by taking a

long
> >hard look at the circumstances. They shouldn't base their opinion simply

on the
> >fact that someone has changed their mind.

>
> True. I actually like Kerry. No, wait, I don't like Kerry. But
> on the other hand, I do like Kerry. Well, until now that is. I changed
> my mind about liking Kerry before I decided I like him... not. Where
> was I? Gee, I just grew a couple of inches with that experience.
>
>
>
>
> Good day. Or as John Kerry would say, bonjour.
>
> Ken (NY)
>
> "I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when
> the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact
> that we did disarm him."
> --John F. Kerry (ABC News, 5/4/03)
>
> email:
> http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm
>
> spammers can send mail to [email protected]
 
GRL wrote:
>
> What the devil is with the Democrats? They could have nominated Joe
> Lieberman, an honorable man that anyone would be satisfied to have as
> president, Republican or Democrat, and they nominate the self-serving
> traitorous liar John Kerry.


When you talk about self-serving socialist liars in Congress, Ted Kennedy,
Joe Lieberman, Chuck Schumer, Diane Fienstein, and John Kerry are the
first names that come to my mind.
Your comment reminds me of an opinion column I recently read which claimed
that John McLain was one of the most universally respected members of
the Senate. As far as I'm concerned, you can lump McLain in with the
Constitution hating trash mentioned above.

Mitch.
 
Mitch Haley wrote:
> GRL wrote:
>>
>> What the devil is with the Democrats? They could have nominated Joe
>> Lieberman, an honorable man that anyone would be satisfied to have as
>> president, Republican or Democrat, and they nominate the self-serving
>> traitorous liar John Kerry.

>
> When you talk about self-serving socialist liars in Congress, Ted
> Kennedy, Joe Lieberman, Chuck Schumer, Diane Fienstein, and John
> Kerry are the first names that come to my mind.
> Your comment reminds me of an opinion column I recently read which
> claimed that John McLain was one of the most universally respected
> members of
> the Senate. As far as I'm concerned, you can lump McLain in with the
> Constitution hating trash mentioned above.


John WHO?!?

Bill "way to blow your credibility" S.